Guidance Document for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater Engagement with Tribal Governments June 2017 (Draft)

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | June 1st, 2017

The objective of this guidance document is to convey information, as provided by California’s Tribal governments, by which local agencies can engage Tribal gove

The objective of this guidance document is to convey information, as provided by California’s Tribal governments, by which local agencies can engage Tribal governments as part of an effort to identify interested persons, and consider the interests of beneficial users of groundwater; including those users on Tribal lands not subject to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). This guidance document can also be used to help local agencies engage with a Tribal government in the planning, financing, and management of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), or help with the development and implementation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) pursuant to SGMA.

Guidance for Climate Change Data Use During Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | April 12th, 2018

This Guidance Document was developed to help Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) incorporate California Department of Water Resources (DWR)-provided climate change

This Guidance Document was developed to help Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) incorporate California Department of Water Resources (DWR)-provided climate change and related data into their Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs). The purpose of this Guidance Document is as follows: • Provide relevant data and tools for GSAs to incorporate climate change into their GSPs. • Provide an analysis approach using the provided data and tools that incorporates the best available science and best available information to date. This Guidance Document focuses on the use of DWR-provided climate change data and provides documentation about the following: • Climate change data development approach • Climate change data development methods and processes • Applications for using the provided climate change data • Climate change data assumptions and limitations This Guidance Document provides a process for using DWR-provided climate change data for computing projected water budgets and serves as a companion document to the water budget best management practices (BMPs)2 and the modeling BMP3. For Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) implementation purposes, the use of climate change data can help with the following: • Developing projected water budgets • Long-term planning of groundwater basin sustainability • Assessing projects and management actions by performing sensitivity analyses of projected conditions • Adaptive Management

Guide for Developing Onsite Water Systems to Support Regional Water Resilience

Pacific Institute | January 26th, 2023

Across the United States, urban communities face growing water challenges, from water scarcity to flooding, pollution, aging water infrastructure, and more. These challen

Across the United States, urban communities face growing water challenges, from water scarcity to flooding, pollution, aging water infrastructure, and more. These challenges present risks, but also an opportunity to rethink how we manage water, including adopting circular approaches in new buildings that reduce their water footprint and improve urban water resilience. Onsite water systems, for example, collect, treat, and reuse water from onsite sources, including wastewater, rainwater, and stormwater, for non-potable water uses like toilet flushing, outdoor irrigation, and cooling. Onsite water systems have the potential to provide multiple benefits for a site, water and wastewater systems, ecosystems, and communities. They can, for example, help companies mitigate water- related risks, like water shortages that threaten to disrupt business operations, and support corporate water stewardship goals. For communities, onsite water systems can enhance water supply reliability, improve water quality, reduce localized flooding, and increase urban green space. The realization and magnitude of benefits will vary with the type of system, scale of adoption, and other context-specific factors. This guide helps site developers consider how onsite water systems can be planned, designed, and operated to provide multiple benefits, and contribute to planning and designing onsite water systems that advance water resilience, support equity, support the environment, and protect public health at the site, water system, and community scales. For each of these outcomes, the guide provides sample questions to consider, stakeholders to engage, resources to examine, and analyses to perform.

Guide to Compliance with California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: How to avoid the “undesirable result” of “significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of surface waters"

Stanford University | September 4th, 2018

In enacting the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) the California Legislature, for the first time ever, expressly linked the two historically distinct legal r

In enacting the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) the California Legislature, for the first time ever, expressly linked the two historically distinct legal regimes governing water in the state that previously had been entirely separate: one governing surface water use and the other groundwater use. SGMA requires Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) and their Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs or Plans) to consider and address the groundwater-surface water interaction, and specifically the impacts of groundwater pumping on surface water beneficial uses. SGMA defines sustainable groundwater management as the avoidance of six “undesirable results” identified in the law. The purpose of this guide is to help GSAs and other stakeholders understand and comply with the requirement of SGMA that groundwater withdrawals must not cause “significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water,” known as “undesirable result no. 6.” This guide is based on the principle that existing legal frameworks (laws, regulations, court decisions, etc.) provide the clearest and most pertinent guidance on what constitutes undesirable result no. 6. This guide addresses only the explicit legal aspects of this statutory mandate. It does not address technical and scientific aspects of SGMA compliance and offers no advice on the steps GSAs must take to get an adequate technical understanding of the groundwater-surface water connections under their purview. GSAs may look to other sources for guidance on that front. In addition, “Navigating Groundwater-Surface Water Interactions under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act,” authored by experts at the University of California Berkeley provides a helpful overview of the steps involved in implementing SGMA provisions relating to groundwater-surface water interactions.  

Guidebook for Implementation of SB 610 and SB 221 to assist water suppliers, cities, and counties in integrating water and land use planning

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | October 10th, 2003

Senate Bills 610 (Chapter 643, Statutes of 2001) and Senate Bill 221 (Chapter 642, Statutes of 2001) amended state law, effective January 1, 2002, to improve the link bet

Senate Bills 610 (Chapter 643, Statutes of 2001) and Senate Bill 221 (Chapter 642, Statutes of 2001) amended state law, effective January 1, 2002, to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 and SB 221 are companion measures which seek to promote more collaborative planning between local water suppliers and cities and counties. Both statutes require detailed information regarding water availability to be provided to the city and county decision-makers prior to approval of specified large development projects. Both statutes also require this detailed information be included in the administrative record that serves as the evidentiary basis for an approval action by the city or county on such projects. Both measures recognize local control and decision making regarding the availability of water for projects and the approval of projects.  Under SB 610, water assessments must be furnished to local governments for inclusion in any environmental documentation for certain projects (as defined in Water Code 10912 [a]) subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Under SB 221, approval by a city or county of certain residential subdivisions requires an affirmative written verification of sufficient water supply. If coordinated and comprehensive water supply planning is underway at the time that the SB 610-water assessment is prepared, compliance with SB 221 will be greatly facilitated. SB 221 is intended as a ‘fail safe’ mechanism to ensure that collaboration on finding the needed water supplies to serve a new large subdivision occurs when it should – before construction begins. Not every project that is subject to the requirements of SB 610 would also require the mandatory water verification of SB 221 (e.g. if there is no subdivision map approval). Conversely, not every project that is subject to the requirements of SB 221 would also require the environmental document to contain an SB 610 water supply assessment. Projects approved before January 1, 2002 were not subject to the requirements of SB 610 or SB 221; however, some projects may have been subject to the requirement to prepare a water supply assessment as set forth in Senate Bill 901 of 1995 (Chapter 881, Statues of 1995). A foundational document for compliance with both SB 610 and SB 221 is the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Both of these statutes repeatedly identify the UWMP as a planning document that, if properly prepared, can be used by a water supplier to meet the standards set forth in both statutes. Thorough and complete UWMPs will allow water suppliers to use UWMPs as a foundation to fulfill the specific requirements of these two statutes. Cities, counties, water districts, property owners, and developers will all be able to utilize this document when planning for and proposing new projects.

Guidebook to Assist Agricultural Water Suppliers to Prepare a 2015 Agricultural Water Management Plan

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | July 20th, 2015

The document titled “A Guidebook to Assist Agricultural Water Suppliers to Prepare a 2015 Agricultural Water Management Plan” (Guidebook) was prepared by the Californ

The document titled “A Guidebook to Assist Agricultural Water Suppliers to Prepare a 2015 Agricultural Water Management Plan” (Guidebook) was prepared by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to assist agricultural water suppliers in understanding and complying with the requirements of the SB X7-7- Water Conservation Act (Steinberg Statute of 2009), (Section I, Part 2.55, Division 6 of the California Water Code), the associated Agricultural Water Management Planning Act (Section I, Part 2.8, Division 6 of the Water Code), the Agricultural Water Measurement Regulation (Title 23 California Code of Regulations), and Executive Order B-29-15. It is meant to help agricultural water suppliers better understand the Water Code Agricultural Water Management Plan (AWMP) requirements and assist them in developing an AWMP. This Guidebook also describes how water conservation plans submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) can be supplemented to satisfy the Water Code and Agricultural Water Measurement Regulation requirements.

Guidebook to Assist Urban Water Suppliers to Prepare a 2010 Urban Water Management Plan

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | March 17th, 2011

Guidebook to Assist Urban Water Suppliers to Prepare a 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (Guidebook) has been developed by the California Department of Water Resources (

Guidebook to Assist Urban Water Suppliers to Prepare a 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (Guidebook) has been developed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to assist urban water suppliers in complying with requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act (the UWMP Act) and the Water Conservation Bill of 2009. It is meant to help suppliers better understand UWMP Act requirements, but water suppliers are solely responsible for ensuring they’ve complied with the requirements of the UWMP Act or applicable laws. For the purposes of this Guidebook and the UWMP Act, urban water suppliers with 3,000 or more service connections or supplying 3,000 or more acre-feet of water per year are to prepare a UWMP every five years.

Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) | July 1st, 1984

Guideline levels for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water: the role of scientific uncertainty, risk assessment decisions, and social factors

Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology (Springer) | January 8th, 2019

Communities across the U.S. are discovering drinking water contaminated by perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and determining appropriate actions. Ther

Communities across the U.S. are discovering drinking water contaminated by perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and determining appropriate actions. There are currently no federal PFAS drinking water standards despite widespread drinking water contamination, ubiquitous population-level exposure, and toxicological and epidemiological evidence of adverse health effects. Absent federal PFAS standards, multiple U.S. states have developed their own healthbased water guideline levels to guide decisions about contaminated site cleanup and drinking water surveillance and treatment. We examined perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) water guideline levels developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state agencies to protect people drinking the water, and summarized how and why these levels differ. We referenced documents and tables released in June 2018 by the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) to identify states that have drinking water and groundwater guideline levels for PFOA and/or PFOS that differ from EPA’s health advisories (HAs). We also gathered assessment documents from state websites and contacted state environmental and health agencies to identify and confirm current guidelines. Seven states have developed their own water guideline levels for PFOA and/or PFOS ranging from 13 to 1000 ng/L, compared to EPA’s HA of 70 ng/L for both compounds individually or combined. We find that the development of PFAS guideline levels via exposure and hazard assessment decisions is influenced by multiple scientific, technical, and social factors, including managing scientific uncertainty, technical decisions and capacity, and social, political, and economic influences from involved stakeholders. Assessments by multiple states and academic scientists suggest that EPA’s HA is not sufficiently protective. The ability of states to develop their own guideline levels and standards provides diverse risk assessment approaches as models for other state and federal regulators, while a sufficiently protective, scientifically sound, and enforceable federal standard would provide more consistent protection.

Guidelines for Considering Traditional Knowledges in Climate Change Initiatives

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | September 9th, 2014

This publication is meant to be an informational resource for tribes, agencies, and organizations across the United States with an interest in understanding Traditional K

This publication is meant to be an informational resource for tribes, agencies, and organizations across the United States with an interest in understanding Traditional Knowledges (TKs) in the context of climate change. It is meant to inspire dialogue and questions, and to foster opportunities for indigenous peoples and non-indigenous partners to braid TKs and western science in culturally-appropriate and tribally-led initiatives. The publication establishes firmly that in all possible cases it is tribes who should ultimately decide answers to specific questions about whether English-language words such as “traditional knowledges” are the best words to use, what knowledges should count as significant to their cultures and communities, and what the terms of sharing or declining to share should be. The information presented in these Guidelines is believed to be current as of the time of production. The Guidelines are a work in progress. The workgroup anticipates revising it over time.